there is darkness even within the lightest works, and light sparks here and there is the ultimate downer novels. WP says that Cleary was advised to write peppy and light and humorous, but scholarship on children's literature, as such exists, actually takes formal note of the 1977 "dark period" where light and peppy children's book writer Beverly Cleary first saw the intrusion of darker themes in what was up to then the all sunshine Ramona series. the incorrigible Ramona, of course, is the somewhat spoiled and spunky hero of several books that remained purely in prepubescent timeframes, but at least according to one source was intended at one point to start flying into the swirl of young womanhood. did the world miss out a masterpiece? or should childhood nostalgia pieces remain forever unsullied by the vortex forces of adult life? does it make sense to rate a child's book on GR and then have heaps of unwanted comments flowing across your log-in page? do I complain too much about this issue?

well... who knows. for me, GR is and cannot be a popularity contest. in fact, trick's on you, the unwitting reader of my microblogging, since I'm using this venue to vent about the frustrations of daily life. as in, (1) did you know that many Japanese somewhat resent the outcome of WW2, (2) isn't it manifestly unfair that a company/employer can just declare policies but an employee just has to put up, or (3) if you buy something with counterfeit cash you can go to jail but if a product fails on you, you have to take extraordinary measures to get a replacement. see, life is stacked against the individual!

anyway, this quasi-manifesto-cum-book review I suppose leads to the interesting question, "what about that debt limit everyone?" I have this burning question for economists--if the US gov't can just print as many bills as it pleases, doesn't it mean that the foreign debt is just a construction? if I borrow cash, I have to come up with cash to repay it plus accumulated interest. but governments control the currency, and therefore can't technically become bankrupt. I don't get it! somebody with economics studies under their belt explain this paradox.

right, right, the book.

well, like, Ramona's parents still love her, and nobody seems to mind being lower-middle class, and the family can scrape by on a single earner's wages (at least temporarily), and the nuclear family is still intact. this is 1977, with a 1950s outlook, more or less. since then the American Family has sort of broken down into methamphetamine, payday loans, and street hustles. so, of course, vote democrat, support social reform, seek student debt easement.